After you define these terms, assuming you can, I'll show you why the distinction is irrelevant.

Science is not about semantics, nor can a theory be proven by sheer semantics.

But as dictionary.com states, it is apparently "the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. "

Of course, exceptions exist. I remember one time about some bird that could breed with another very similar bird, and that the latter bird could also breed with another similar bird, but that the former bird could not. So like:

A was compatible with B.B was compatible with C.A was not compatible with C.

It was something like that. However, the birds very much resembled one another, and since a species must be able to 'breed among themselves' as well as 'not be able to breed with members of another species' then that causes that situation to be a paradox. Certainly there are limits in said definition, and the world should not be interpreted through definitions alone.

Of course, exceptions exist. I remember one time about some bird that could breed with another very similar bird, and that the latter bird could also breed with another similar bird, but that the former bird could not. So like:

A was compatible with B.B was compatible with C.A was not compatible with C.

It was something like that. However, the birds very much resembled one another, and since a species must be able to 'breed among themselves' as well as 'not be able to breed with members of another species' then that causes that situation to be a paradox. Certainly there are limits in said definition, and the world should not be interpreted through definitions alone.

I'm not sure you understand just how bad that definition is. What about beings that reproduce asexually? Or plants, which can breed with virtually any other plant in existence? Are you going to tell me that oranges and bananas and tomatoes are actually the same species? I sure hope not.

Anyway, here's why "species" and "variety within a species" are irrelevant terms. Check out this image:Read it and answer the questions in that text. If you can, you will have successfully proven that "species", as humans defined them, and "variety within a species" are things nature gives a shit about.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

I don't see why asexual reproduction is not an example of a species "Breeding among themselves".

Concerning that very intelligent block of red, blue and all colors in between text. All it does it ask questions about the block of text and when one color become another. Perhaps it can be used to answer some of the more mystifying questions of natural selection:

If a red beetle turns into a blue beetle over the course of evolution, at what point was it a purple beetle?

The block of text is a good example of micro-evolution, and a change in degree. However, the kind of evolution that is required for fundamentally new structures and processes to come into existence is... well... fundamentally new.

It would be like starting the block of text with red letters, and slowly causing the text to change from English to Chinese. How would one go about that? English and Chinese uses different types of letters and symbols. Perhaps at some point the words would start alternating, 1 English then 1 Chinese, but there could be no single character that is 50% English and 50% Chinese that would make sense (especially since a single letter in English has less meaning than a single character in Chinese, whereas the letter L is a part of a word, while ? is an entire word by itself when translated into English). It would no longer be English nor Chinese, so it would not be relatable to the original letters nor the final letters in terms of how we understand it. It would not be a letter, as it would not be legible and would not mean anything.

In order to go from English to Chinese, a sudden change must occur, where at one point is it completely English and then at the next point it is completely Chinese. It cannot go from English to Chinese gradually, because the change that is ultimately occurring is causing the original text to change fundamentally, instead of just changing in degree such as the change in color shading.

Words going from red to blue is a good example of micro-evolution, like a red beetle experiencing micro-evolution and changing into a blue beetle by simply changing the shading of its husk. Words going from English to Chinese though is a good example of macro-evolution, whereas gradual changes over time (in the same form as your example exhibits) are simply not able to cause such a change.

Words going from English to Chinese though is a good example of macro-evolution, whereas gradual changes over time (in the same form as your example exhibits) are simply not able to cause such a change.

Showing your ignorance of evolution again. You can't go from species A and end up in species B that exists concurrently with species A. However, if you were to start at the [wiki]Cumaean alphabet[/wiki], then the [wiki]Etruscan alphabet[/wiki], then moved on to Old Latin, then Classical Latin, then Vulgar Latin, then Medieval Latin, and so on, you'd eventually reach English and all other languages that were derived from Latin. They have widely different alphabets. For example, do you even know what "ç" is? Do you know the name of the character? No, you do not (most likely). Yet it exists in my language, as well as others. What about "ª" (note: not º)? What about "k"? That letter, along with "w" and "y", don't exist in my language, but they do in English. There is not a single character in my language that resembles a "k" or "y". "W" is a different story, since it's just two "v"'s put together.

This will be my last post on this thread. You have repeatedly shown you don't understand evolution, but are still trying to argue against it somehow, like a blind man arguing against the existence of light or a "perfectly colorblind" person (someone who only sees black, white, and grey) arguing against the existence of colors aside from black, white, and grey.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

In order to go from English to Chinese, a sudden change must occur, where at one point is it completely English and then at the next point it is completely Chinese. It cannot go from English to Chinese gradually, because the change that is ultimately occurring is causing the original text to change fundamentally, instead of just changing in degree such as the change in color shading.

A proper analogy in evolution would be, say, these equivalences:

Chinese = InsectsEnglish = MammalsFrench = BirdsItalian = DinosaursLatin = A common ancestor of English, French, and Italian (and analogous to a common ancestor of mammals, birds, and dinosaurs, but not of insects)

The co-existing languages don't turn into each other. But they do share common roots. Characterizing evolution as a change from one currently-existing species into another currently-existing species is a mistake most creationists make when they've either not read anything about what evolution actually means yet, or have been faithfully resisting such education.

When did Latin turn into French? When did it turn into Italian? When did it turn into Spanish? Oh wait, it couldn't, because micro-changes in language cannot possibly cause them to diverge into different ones...

So you can't answer the questions. Good to know. You have proven, like your creationist brethren, that you and your ilk don't care about honesty. You just want your views reinforced and protected.

I don't think the point was ever really about answering the question as to the precise moment when the letters became purple and when they became blue. It is nigh impossible to tell, unless you spend a lot of time analyzing the pixels and what not.

Showing your ignorance of evolution again. You can't go from species A and end up in species B that exists concurrently with species A. <snip>

First of all, since red and blue both exist, you would be making the same 'ignorant claim'. Second, that wasn't the point I was making. The point is that you are implying that gradual changes in degree is the exact same thing as changing one distinct structure/process into a completely new and distinct structure/process. You cannot change an English character into a Chinese character with gradual changes in the same way that you can change a red letter into a blue letter through gradual changes. It doesn't matter whether you want to go through 'other' languages or not. A character belongs to one language, and if two languages share the same exact character then it still wouldn't matter because no change would be occurring (as it would still have a specific meaning to you depending on your interpretation, but the letter itself would not have changed). Eventually there would come a point where one character would have to change into completely different characters, and that could not be accomplished through gradual change without the letter/character losings it meaning. (losings its meaning being similar to a color being unable to be determined by itself)

In order to go from English to Chinese, a sudden change must occur, where at one point is it completely English and then at the next point it is completely Chinese. It cannot go from English to Chinese gradually, because the change that is ultimately occurring is causing the original text to change fundamentally, instead of just changing in degree such as the change in color shading.

A proper analogy in evolution would be, say, these equivalences:

Chinese = InsectsEnglish = MammalsFrench = BirdsItalian = DinosaursLatin = A common ancestor of English, French, and Italian (and analogous to a common ancestor of mammals, birds, and dinosaurs, but not of insects)

The co-existing languages don't turn into each other. But they do share common roots. Characterizing evolution as a change from one currently-existing species into another currently-existing species is a mistake most creationists make when they've either not read anything about what evolution actually means yet, or have been faithfully resisting such education.

When did Latin turn into French? When did it turn into Italian? When did it turn into Spanish? Oh wait, it couldn't, because micro-changes in language cannot possibly cause them to diverge into different ones...

But even original languages involve different characters. If the characters are the same or similar, then they might as well appear as the same character depending on which language you are attempting to interpret them with. The original intent of my post was to show that mere analogies such as this are insufficient/unable to prove evolution or natural history.

Also, like I said, red is a currently existing color as well as blue and purple. If the nitpick is able to be applied to mine legitimately, it should also be able to be applied to the original red/blue paragraph as well.

But even original languages involve different characters. If the characters are the same or similar, then they might as well appear as the same character depending on which language you are attempting to interpret them with.

What original languages (I only indicated one)? What characters? What does any of this have to do with what I said?

Also, like I said, red is a currently existing color as well as blue and purple. If the nitpick is able to be applied to mine legitimately, it should also be able to be applied to the original red/blue paragraph as well.

The blue is not currently existing at the start of the paragraph. Nor is red currently existing at the end of it. The analogy is being used to explain how to understand miniscule changes along a continuum in which no sharp dividing lines are warranted. Did it fail?

I'm sure you can find ways to avoid understanding it, but try to let a little understanding of what others are saying seep through, will ya?